These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Turret Damage Formula
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solidus Obscura
Nasty-Boyz
Templis CALSF
#1 - 2017-06-14 03:38:29 UTC
Hi all!

I am working on a tool that calculates DPS across different ammos/turrets based on a target (much like pyfa's damage graph). Having trouble recreating the damage graph for a set of turrets. Uniwiki for this has a disclaimer saying the article requires an update. Would anyone have the current average DPS formula for a turret?

Solidus for CSM!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#2 - 2017-06-14 05:05:58 UTC
As far as I know, CCP hasn't changed the formula, so the one in uniwiki is still the right one.

Wormholer for life.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2017-06-14 07:08:48 UTC
formula should be still the same as uniwiki!
Aeryn Maricadie
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2017-06-14 07:16:31 UTC
They sort of changed it. Not sure exactly how but they combined sig resolution and tracking to give one number without changing the actual solution. Supposedly this was to make it easier, but the result is a meaningless turret tracking value that doesn't tell you **** because the overview wasn't changed.
Kogilla
Doomheim
#5 - 2017-06-14 13:40:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kogilla
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
They sort of changed it. Not sure exactly how but they combined sig resolution and tracking to give one number without changing the actual solution. Supposedly this was to make it easier, but the result is a meaningless turret tracking value that doesn't tell you **** because the overview wasn't changed.


Did they ever explain why this was done, or how they felt it made things easier? Because, on the surface, it remains in my eyes on of the most unnecessary changes I've seen in the three years I've played. It provides seemingly no advantages and removes access to valuable information for piloting.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#6 - 2017-06-14 14:47:53 UTC
Kogilla wrote:
Did they ever explain why this was done, or how they felt it made things easier? Because, on the surface, it remains in my eyes on of the most unnecessary changes I've seen in the three years I've played. It provides seemingly no advantages and removes access to valuable information for piloting.

I have no idea why CCP changed them, as a former programmer I can see the benefits of the new single variable system.
Single variable means the math takes less time for the server to calculate. Combine that with the god only knows how many turret related calculations the servers have to make every tick and the potential reduction in server load alone could easily justify this change.

Personally I like the new system better than the old, I find that it is quicker and easier to understand the relative differences between the various options.
Aeryn Maricadie
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2017-06-14 15:40:58 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Kogilla wrote:
Did they ever explain why this was done, or how they felt it made things easier? Because, on the surface, it remains in my eyes on of the most unnecessary changes I've seen in the three years I've played. It provides seemingly no advantages and removes access to valuable information for piloting.

I have no idea why CCP changed them, as a former programmer I can see the benefits of the new single variable system.
Single variable means the math takes less time for the server to calculate. Combine that with the god only knows how many turret related calculations the servers have to make every tick and the potential reduction in server load alone could easily justify this change.

Personally I like the new system better than the old, I find that it is quicker and easier to understand the relative differences between the various options.

That may be true for the calculations but they still didn't have to mess with the display number which is where I definitely disagree. The old way you could just compare the tracking number on your guns to the number displayed on the overview. now you cant really do that. I've tried looking and asking around how to convert the new numbers to the old r/s and I find multiple different answers how it is done. Some people say its just move the decimal over, others say it got multiplied somehow by the old sig res numbers.

BTW if anyone knows the answer please enlighten us, for now I guess I'll just be a drone/missile scrub.
Solidus Obscura
Nasty-Boyz
Templis CALSF
#8 - 2017-06-14 16:12:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Solidus Obscura
Thanks for the replies. I think I am still missing something. See below for the simulation spreadsheet I have created:

Google Sheet - Simulation

I've done the same graph in pyfa but pyfa is having higher damage numbers at the front end of the optimal range:

Pyfa Damage

Is there something in my formula that is incorrect? From memory, the pattern in the spreadsheet seems more accurate as large turrets have trouble hitting smaller moving ships within the optimal. The formula I am using is from within pyfa itself (eos\graph\fitDps.py) which is based on the UniWiki formula.

EDIT: I dun goofed, pyfa is also taking the web and grapple into account. Taking those mods off makes the damage graphs equivalent. Yay.

Solidus for CSM!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
Fungus Amongus
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#9 - 2017-06-14 16:19:01 UTC
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
They sort of changed it. Not sure exactly how but they combined sig resolution and tracking to give one number without changing the actual solution. Supposedly this was to make it easier, but the result is a meaningless turret tracking value that doesn't tell you **** because the overview wasn't changed.


From what I recall about this update, is they didn't change the underlying formula, but just came up with a tracking score to display for "simplicity" or something. So, I believe others are correct in saying the tracking formula posted on e-uni wiki is accurate.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#10 - 2017-06-14 16:33:27 UTC
guns are pretty simple:

getting good hits, well keep on doing what you are doing.
getting okay hits, maybe you can pilot a little better, or use a web/painter, and get better hits.
not getting good hits, well you need to pilot better, and use some ewar.
not hitting at all, you have some serious problems and need to figure that out, ewar, piloting, and/or wrong ammo/guns come into question.

I don't think the rad/s on the overview was very useful, You get an 8 digit decimal number that you have to read somewhere in the middle and your typical goals are either minimize it for max damage, or max it to minimize damage. Sure there are some in between cases but those are typically better taken care of by manual piloting. trying to match it to your gun's rad/s tracking number is a massive headache. it is almost always easier to just go by transversal velocity where there are generally 3-4 digits.

I'm not saying the new system is great, but it is pretty easy to check the general picture between various gun types.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#11 - 2017-06-14 17:59:58 UTC
An admittedly quick look at the sheet says that you're calculating chance-to-hit accurately but I'm not sure you're accounting for degrading hit quality in falloff.

I rambled a bit in this thread and ended up with this mess of a spreadsheet.

The basic idea is you have to account for both loss of hits and loss of hit quality when calculating DPS. Every time your chance to hit goes down, you lose a proportional amount of hit quality (which, when chance to hit is 100%, is distributed randomly from 50% damage to 150% damage). So when you have 80% chance to hit, you won't be doing 80% damage, you'll have an 80% chance of doing random damage distributed from 50% to 130% of listed damage and a 20% chance of doing no damage.

And then you have to throw in critical hits on top of that. Which skews things a bit again.
Nalia White
Tencus
#12 - 2017-06-19 16:52:36 UTC
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Kogilla wrote:
Did they ever explain why this was done, or how they felt it made things easier? Because, on the surface, it remains in my eyes on of the most unnecessary changes I've seen in the three years I've played. It provides seemingly no advantages and removes access to valuable information for piloting.

I have no idea why CCP changed them, as a former programmer I can see the benefits of the new single variable system.
Single variable means the math takes less time for the server to calculate. Combine that with the god only knows how many turret related calculations the servers have to make every tick and the potential reduction in server load alone could easily justify this change.

Personally I like the new system better than the old, I find that it is quicker and easier to understand the relative differences between the various options.

That may be true for the calculations but they still didn't have to mess with the display number which is where I definitely disagree. The old way you could just compare the tracking number on your guns to the number displayed on the overview. now you cant really do that. I've tried looking and asking around how to convert the new numbers to the old r/s and I find multiple different answers how it is done. Some people say its just move the decimal over, others say it got multiplied somehow by the old sig res numbers.

BTW if anyone knows the answer please enlighten us, for now I guess I'll just be a drone/missile scrub.


the new tracking number is the same as the old. the new is just standardised to a signature of 10km as far as i remember.

i am not a fan of it either. it basicly means that when you are flying a frigate and fight another frigate which has a signature of approximatly 40m then you have to divide your tracking by 250 and you will have the number that you can compare in the overview with the radial velocity (i think it's that).

well i hope that's right :)

Syndicate - K5-JRD

Home to few, graveyard for many

My biggest achievement
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#13 - 2017-06-19 16:58:50 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Kogilla wrote:
Did they ever explain why this was done, or how they felt it made things easier? Because, on the surface, it remains in my eyes on of the most unnecessary changes I've seen in the three years I've played. It provides seemingly no advantages and removes access to valuable information for piloting.

I have no idea why CCP changed them, as a former programmer I can see the benefits of the new single variable system.
Single variable means the math takes less time for the server to calculate. Combine that with the god only knows how many turret related calculations the servers have to make every tick and the potential reduction in server load alone could easily justify this change.

Personally I like the new system better than the old, I find that it is quicker and easier to understand the relative differences between the various options.



The did the change to dumb it down. This kind of proves it.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2017-06-20 02:25:37 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
An admittedly quick look at the sheet says that you're calculating chance-to-hit accurately but I'm not sure you're accounting for degrading hit quality in falloff.

I rambled a bit in this thread and ended up with this mess of a spreadsheet.

The basic idea is you have to account for both loss of hits and loss of hit quality when calculating DPS. Every time your chance to hit goes down, you lose a proportional amount of hit quality (which, when chance to hit is 100%, is distributed randomly from 50% damage to 150% damage). So when you have 80% chance to hit, you won't be doing 80% damage, you'll have an 80% chance of doing random damage distributed from 50% to 130% of listed damage and a 20% chance of doing no damage.

And then you have to throw in critical hits on top of that. Which skews things a bit again.


you are always the light!
+1 fan acquired
ExcalibursTemplar
CANZUK
#15 - 2017-06-20 04:36:03 UTC
Does anyone know is the number shown in game for tracking now actually degrees instead radians ?
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#16 - 2017-06-20 05:52:04 UTC
ExcalibursTemplar wrote:
Does anyone know is the number shown in game for tracking now actually degrees instead radians ?


Apparently it's radians * 1000. Because, sure, that makes ******* sense CCP.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#17 - 2017-06-20 12:54:30 UTC
I've found the best way to sort all this is to lock a ship, hit approach and start firing.


The second best way to sort all this:

1. Decide how you want your ship to do damage (short or long range). Pick that weapon for your ship (ex: blasters or rail guns)
2. Fit them
3. Add damage mods as you see fit (damage will go up)
4. Add range mods as you see fit (you'll be able to hit things further away more better)
5. Add tracking mods as you see fit (your damage will improve for small fast things, but not for large stationary things)
6. Adjust as your targets selection varies (more damage and less tracking for big slow things AND more tracking for smaller/faster things)
7. Remember what works best for what (write it down if necessary)
8. Remember that you ships motion affects all these things
9. Strive to not get hung up on min/max and formulas

Missiles - same thing but a different set of mods
Drones - same thing but a different set of mods
Rigs - they are just another set of mods - fit according to your needs


Protip: Things that serve you better than knowing and understanding the damage formulas for guns and missiles:
1. Knowing when to use long vs short range weapons
2. Understanding how the various modules affect/improve an equation that YOU CAN'T CHANGE

It's a geek game. I get that. Getting you arms around the formulas is important to some folks. Just remember that knowing the formula doesn't really get you much when fitting a ship. Once you pick your weapon time - it's all about the modules and your targets. Focus on getting your arms around those things that you can change.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#18 - 2017-06-20 19:07:35 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I've found the best way to sort all this is to lock a ship, hit approach and start firing.


The second best way to sort all this:

1. Decide how you want your ship to do damage (short or long range). Pick that weapon for your ship (ex: blasters or rail guns)
2. Fit them
3. Add damage mods as you see fit (damage will go up)
4. Add range mods as you see fit (you'll be able to hit things further away more better)
5. Add tracking mods as you see fit (your damage will improve for small fast things, but not for large stationary things)
6. Adjust as your targets selection varies (more damage and less tracking for big slow things AND more tracking for smaller/faster things)
7. Remember what works best for what (write it down if necessary)
8. Remember that you ships motion affects all these things
9. Strive to not get hung up on min/max and formulas

Missiles - same thing but a different set of mods
Drones - same thing but a different set of mods
Rigs - they are just another set of mods - fit according to your needs


Protip: Things that serve you better than knowing and understanding the damage formulas for guns and missiles:
1. Knowing when to use long vs short range weapons
2. Understanding how the various modules affect/improve an equation that YOU CAN'T CHANGE

It's a geek game. I get that. Getting you arms around the formulas is important to some folks. Just remember that knowing the formula doesn't really get you much when fitting a ship. Once you pick your weapon time - it's all about the modules and your targets. Focus on getting your arms around those things that you can change.


You're not wrong, of course. I build simulations and understand formulae because I like it. The best way to understand their practical application is in space.

For me, building things out first gives me some broad parameters within which to bound my activities (whether we're talking about fitting or flying). I have a pretty good sense for when to add, for instance, a damage mod versus an application mod and how that will change how I use a ship. That's valuable, and my first understanding comes from building spreadsheets. Honing that in can only be done undocked.

The minutiae are fascinating to me. They are to other people as well. But grasping them alone won't let you master the game.